Gold Coast Regional Rapid Rail (R1)(Refined Proposal)

[#Metro]

Investing into a Legacy Alignment vs Something New

- Patronage goes up when services become faster and more frequent, R1 could deliver both.

- The alternative on offer here is to sink more money into the existing legacy Beenleigh alignment.

- An obvious question to ask is what will the average speed be for GC trains under that scenario be? Will it be 120 km/hr? or more like 60 km/hr?

Sunshine Coast Line - 160 km/hr standard
The proposed Sunshine Coast line will be built to a 160 km/hr standard. A Gold Coast R1 concept could be similarly designed. The average speed needed to save 20 mins in the corridor is 120 km/hr. Given the NGRs can apparently do 140 km/hr, it is within what the train can do. And if it is not - just realise the full speed gain with faster trains when the fleet next gets renewed.

Regional Rail link in Victoria is another supporting example of how when you increase speed and capacity (through separation) patronage increases. The amount of new track for RRL was ~ 90 km, for the R1 it would be more like 30 km. Some material I found from the ARA:



Notes

More details revealed on planned 37km line and stations from Beerwah to Maroochydore
https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2023/08/08/fast-and-reliable-direct-rail-line-details-revealed

"The dual-track Direct Sunshine Coast Rail Line, from Beerwah to Maroochydore, could accommodate trains that reach speeds of 160km/h in some sections."

ARA Faster Rail Report
https://ara.net.au/wp-content/uploads/ARA-Faster-Rail-Research-Report-February-2021_FINAL.pdf

[HappyTrainGuy]

Cost. It's handy dandy to make claims and reference other places where infrastructure (rail/bus) and trip generators/destinations are different but cost is going to be the big problem. Trains can reach speeds but doesn't mean that will be track speed. MBRL had higher design speeds but actual track speeds were lower.

Since you like to pull stats out of the wazoo no matter how abstract to suit your claims (like your Gold Coast population figures of 1,000,000people explain the alignment. Explain overpasses. Explain curve radius. Explain stopping patterns. Explain rollingstock. Explain intergrating with the existing network. State government has been good in this regard when it comes to glossy A4 documents but when it comes to the nitty gritty it all falls apart. As does a lot of the proposals and fantasy stuff that gets hounded on here like a Geebung maglev, buses running through the airport grounds to get to Pinkenba or Corinda/sherwood tunnels.

Some parts of the existing network you can sink money into and get good speed increases. But you also have cost. For example we saw Newman remove NWTC connections from Petrie. This included the loss of one platform and an extra road for a new stabling yard/triple. The platform is gone as the earthworks and university design has prevented that. We have also seen multiple governments walk away from the 160kph Caboolture-Nambour quad due to cost (the current project just gets shat on when you compare the two designs. Had work continued we would have had an opening date of this year and tilts would have been running 160kph Caboolture-Nambour and the Palmwoods, Eudlo, Mooloolah, Glass House shuffle would be a thing of the past). We have seen Nambour-Gladstone works never eventuate due to cost and benefit. One of those projects was straightening the section of track where the ETT derailed. ATP was cut from the suburban network due to cost in the mid 00's and that's not to mention the atp work that was done in the mid 90's. Cost all plays a part. You can keep looking and bringing up fancy snippets of documents to suit your argument but there is a reality.

[#Metro]

Well, let's look at what business-as-usual will deliver:

Here is a list of recent and planned expenditures on the M1 (committed funds):
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/projects/programs/pacific-motorway-m1-upgrade-program

Project
Coomera interchange -    $74.7 million
Coomera Connector Stage 1 -    $1.53 billion
Coomera Connector Future Stages - $11 million
Daisy Hill to Logan Motorway - $1 billion
Eight Mile Plains to Daisy Hill - $750 million
Logan Motorway to Palm Beach - $19.8 million
Loganholme to Pimpama - $1.4 million
M1/M3 Gateway Merge - $195.3 million
Mudgeeraba to Robina - $95.5 million
Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes - $218.5 million
Oxenford interchange - $25 million
Ormeau interchange - $20 million
Pacific Motorway interchange upgrades - $212.9 million
Pimpama interchange -    $110.8 million
Varsity Lakes to Tugun - $1.0 billion
Worongary to Mudgeeraba - $95.5 million
Yatala South Interchange $82.1 million
------
Grand Total: $5.4 billion
------

+ Logan and Gold Coast Faster Rail - $2.6 billion
+ Future rail works Kuraby-Park Road - unknown, let's say another $2 billion

So, you are looking at ~ $8-10 billion being spent connecting Brisbane - Logan - Gold Coast

After spending all of that, we will have:
- A well-expanded and upgraded motorway offering 100-110 km/hr which can accommodate even more cars
- Trains - 4 trains/hr GC line, doing about 60 km/hr average speed between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

How does this look like a good value proposition for rail?
What do members think about what will happen to mode share under this scenario?

Finances
- Taking $10 billion and spreading it over 30 km R1 rail, gives 300 million/km.
- If the R1 project were to keep under or match that per-km cost* it would be similar to the amount of money we are already spending to improve transport between Brisbane and the Gold Coast on all modes
- *Note, I am not saying that it will because the merits turn on cost/benefit analysis, which is different to a cost-only analysis

Comparison
Morley-Ellenbrook line is 21 km being done for $1.7 billion which gives 80.95 million/km. Projects on the East coast tend to be 1.5-2x more expensive than than in WA, so we can adjust up by 2x to $161.9 million/km. This figure is still well below the 300 million/km comparable established under the 'Finances' paragraph above.

Metronet - Morley to Ellenbrook Line
https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/metronet-morley-to-ellenbrook-line

[HappyTrainGuy]

Stop side stepping questions that don't align with your narrative. How do you address the cost of the project. How do you address the cost of rollingstock. How do address the height of overpasses and existing infrastructure. How do you interact with the existing network.

I'll just answer your questions with questions. How fast are they going to be with the new infill stations? Why were CRR time savings based on walking to the city from south brisbane? Why dont we bring back the old express pattern? What are the times of Helensvale express services?

[#Metro]

Stop side stepping questions that don't align with your narrative. How do you address the cost of the project. How do you address the cost of rollingstock. How do address the height of overpasses and existing infrastructure. How do you interact with the existing network.

I'll just answer your questions with questions. How fast are they going to be with the new infill stations? Why were CRR time savings based on walking to the city from south brisbane? Why dont we bring back the old express pattern? What are the times of Helensvale express services?

Just address it the same way as the PTA did in Perth.

Morley-Ellenbrook line will be their third freeway median rail project.

As my tagline states: Negative people - Have a problem for every solution.

With each Morley-Ellenbrook Line milestone reached we're getting further into the detail of the 21km rail line with five new stations.

[Jonno]

I would argue Sydney, Metro and Light Rail and the inter city services are our best train system/services in Australia.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yes and you also had I am not a TMR.

Just because someone is questioning your claims and the validity of them doesnt mean you have to turn into a politician or that I'm being negative. I would have thought something as simple as addressing existing infrastructure would be something easy. Maybe even integration with the existing network. But like normal you hide and duck questions when people ask something with a bit more depth.

Just saw your edited cost part. You have referenced projects that are fixing other problems. As I have mentioned the problem with the m1 on the Gold Coast is a lot of people use it for short trips which is causing the congestion in the area which impacts the highway but also local roads as a result. Remember not everyone on the Gold Coast wants to go to Brisbane. A similar problem would be Oxley being a triple with a 4th unwired track which severely limits running in the area and does cause problems with routing as we see in arvo peak. ETCS rollout aswell. I'm all for railways but if you lay down proposals and ideas then bawk when someone questions you isn't the right way to go about discussing it. So the question remains. How do you route the railway through existing infrastructure such as overpasses. What are you basing cheaper labour costs on? It's not DOO and it's still a 2 person crew. Post CRR more than likely will be going to sectorised rollingstock so this will 100% impact how it connects with the existing network with PSA being moved to other parts of the network. Okay maybe no psa then so how do you address the delays to services for onboard crews assisting passengers 60m away. Are we going to have more fat in the timetable slowing down services? Are we going to station skip to maintain city slots? If it goes into CRR then you need NGR rollingstock and the psa that go with them. So how are labour costs cheaper. Remember Perth does not have NGR's or this problem to deal with. You can say the same obscure thing refrencing some page from some other network or state government (maybe you should use some stats from the business case qld submitted to IA) and over. Heck even dust off some of that bs inland rail jargon that was never going to fly. But I will keep asking. What are you basing cheaper labour costs on. You mentioned it. Surely you can answer it.

[#Metro]

Just because someone is questioning your claims and the validity of them doesnt mean you have to turn into a politician or that I'm being negative. I would have thought something as simple as addressing existing infrastructure would be something easy. Maybe even integration with the existing network. But like normal you hide and duck questions when people ask something with a bit more depth.

Not at all. I've provided copious depth and references. And no amount of information or explanation will convince/satisfy you, which is the whole central purpose of your stream of questions.

 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Don't go in depth. You go too far in depth and not answering any questions. Say it simply then.

Simplify why labour costs on our network would be cheaper.

Can you answer that. I don't care about the Perth network. We aren't in Perth. DOO does not apply here. NGR PSA does apply here. So a Perth example is not valid. This isn't v-line so Victoria doesn't apply here. And check your working so you don't overshoot by 900,000 residents.

How does this result in cheaper labour costs on the Queensland rail network.

[#Metro]

I spent some time briefly living in Perth earlier this year, and I was impressed with what the WA PTA has achieved:   

1. Excellent CircleRoute bus, took the bus the whole way around the city, it came every 15 minutes or better.
2. Amazing bus-rail interchanges
3. Bus drivers protected in all-enclosed security screens. Something we have not yet achieved here.
4. 15-min trains everywhere (we can dream), and brand new airport line with trains well into the night.
5. Fast ride down the Kwinana Freeway on a train

The Morley-Ellenbrook railway will be the third railway the WA PTA will build in a freeway median. Actually, I do recall seeing works being done on the Broun Ave overpass in Morley. I think they might have simply replaced it with a new higher overpass. 

The METRONET Morley-Ellenbrook Line has reached a major milestone with the Broun Avenue Bridge, over Tonkin Highway, demolished and new Morley Station designs released. The bridge was removed to make way for a new, longer, and wider structure, which will accommodate traffic lanes and a bus interchange.

Source: https://www.metronet.wa.gov.au/news/latest-news/broun-avenue-bridge-demolished-to-make-way-for-morley-station

It is understandable that some members may have reservations about using freeways for trains. But a freeway is still a Priority A ROW. And so there is your opportunity to get the high speed and patronage. It doesn't take away the ability for TOD around Beenleigh line train stations, because the Beenleigh line train will still be servicing that Beenleigh line corridor.

In terms of operating costs per service, Jarrett Walker of Human Transit Blog has a article on why faster service means cheaper service. It's part of his Transit 'Basics' series of blogs. If the R1 achieves a 20-minute time saving, that not only reduces the cost of operating a service, but it encourages more patronage and thus fare revenue as well - a double win.

Basics: Operating Cost https://humantransit.org/2011/07/02box.html

Faster service can cost less to operate, because drivers are paid by the hour rather than by distance.

Every increase in average speed is a savings in service hours, and thus in operating cost.

Frequency and speed are both great things for the customer.  But for the transit operating company, frequency costs money, while speed saves money.  When discussing the hard choices surrounding frequency and speed – choices that really pervade every part of this book – it's essential to keep that in mind.  Frequency costs; speed saves.

[HappyTrainGuy]

That didn't answer the question. Still side stepping. Providing some information to look like you have an answer but you don't. I want to know the details about the QR network cheaper labour. Not Perth. Not Metro/Vline. Whoever. And that's a big "if". Will you get 20 minute time savings? I don't think so in the absolute slightest. Fare revenue has zero factor on lowering labour cost. So no need to bring that up. As I have highlighted countless times before in this and other threads. NGR's have dramatically increased operational costs from the crew aspect. Onboard crews are the same but PSA requirements dwarf onboard crew numbers. This does not apply to other networks in Australia. You could argue this is also another reason why there hasn't been a bigger uptake in increasing network frequencies. This is unique to Queensland and unique to the NGRs which make up the majority of the total fleet. Areas where they have tried to reduce this problem has resulted in network delays and station skipping. The network gets away with it at night due to lower patronage and fat in the timetable as timing is based on a peak hour run. NGRs do not run on the Beenleigh and Ferny Grove line due to the PSA cost and the possibility to delaying services should the station be unattended. The frequency of trains and their proximity to crosses on the FG line means many stations would require 2 staff minimum as staff would have difficulty swapping platforms quickly without the need for running or if services were late running. This is also why I asked how does it integrate to the existing network. CRR is NGR only. Meaning you'll need the extra PSA staff. Depending on timings you may need 1 psa or you would need multiple staff. Eagle Junction for instance has 2 full time staff members whose sole job is to look inside NGR's. That's also not including staff in the ticket office. Darra has 3 staff on the platforms during morning peak hour and another in the station office - that's if there's not a sign saying this building is currently unattended. Northgate, Bowen Hills and Southbank are all stations that have a little room on the platform for PSA's to hide inbetween services. Park road is another that has a minimum of 3 staff whose job is mostly looking inside trains in peak hour. Say if there are 8 full time staff for 2 stations covering first to last service for 7 days that's nearly $450,000 added to your labour cost and that's if they equally earn $55000 a year. Some staff get paid a lot more than that depending on their role and qualifications. Yes station staff are always going to be a factor but the majority of stations across seq have longer psa hours. Some stations like banyo has the station office locked at night with a PSA popping out when the NGR's arrive. Having the driver do this is not possible due to the ends of NGR's not meeting DAA requirements meaning every NGR has to go through a second round of DAA modifications to the cab ends. The same applies to DOO. As long as the NGRs do not have wheelchair access points at the cab ends  DOO will not be a factor and that's ignoring station problems and ETCS.

Drivers/guards are on a fixed roster. So you might 'save' on transit time and potential averagesbut that doesn't take into account the dead time that crews are still being paid for, crew positioning movements and dead running. If you are boosting frequency the same applies as you have increased the amount of onboard crew required and the PSA crew levels aswell. This is where rosters/control make the true cost savings by having psa clock off and rely on the fat to make up delays or merging the subs and mains on the ncl/city or dead running Caboolture to Bowen hills to form a beenleigh service. Same with the amount of crew OT being done. It's a complex issue. As I have said it's difficult to compare networks despite similarities. And claiming cost savings simply isn't true.

Now. Patronage. I could raise this but it's a similar issue. It's not a simple claim. You need a supporting network. You like to mention it to Perth but it's not Perth. Perth still has a lot of city travel. Gold Coast has short haul and long haul in the one corridor.

[#Metro]

That didn't answer the question. Still side stepping. Providing some information to look like you have an answer but you don't. I want to know the details about the QR network cheaper labour. Not Perth. Not Metro/Vline. Whoever. And that's a big "if". Will you get 20 minute time savings? I don't think so in the absolute slightest. Fare revenue has zero factor on lowering labour cost. So no need to bring that up. As I have highlighted countless times before in this and other threads. NGR's have dramatically increased operational costs from the crew aspect. Onboard crews are the same but PSA requirements dwarf onboard crew numbers. This does not apply to other networks in Australia. You could argue this is also another reason why there hasn't been a bigger uptake in increasing network frequencies. This is unique to Queensland and unique to the NGRs which make up the majority of the total fleet. Areas where they have tried to reduce this problem has resulted in network delays and station skipping. The network gets away with it at night due to lower patronage and fat in the timetable as timing is based on a peak hour run. NGRs do not run on the Beenleigh and Ferny Grove line due to the PSA cost and the possibility to delaying services should the station be unattended. The frequency of trains and their proximity to crosses on the FG line means many stations would require 2 staff minimum as staff would have difficulty swapping platforms quickly without the need for running or if services were late running. This is also why I asked how does it integrate to the existing network. CRR is NGR only. Meaning you'll need the extra PSA staff. Depending on timings you may need 1 psa or you would need multiple staff. Eagle Junction for instance has 2 full time staff members whose sole job is to look inside NGR's. That's also not including staff in the ticket office. Darra has 3 staff on the platforms during morning peak hour and another in the station office - that's if there's not a sign saying this building is currently unattended. Northgate, Bowen Hills and Southbank are all stations that have a little room on the platform for PSA's to hide inbetween services. Park road is another that has a minimum of 3 staff whose job is mostly looking inside trains in peak hour. Say if there are 8 full time staff for 2 stations covering first to last service for 7 days that's nearly $450,000 added to your labour cost and that's if they equally earn $55000 a year. Some staff get paid a lot more than that depending on their role and qualifications. Yes station staff are always going to be a factor but the majority of stations across seq have longer psa hours. Some stations like banyo has the station office locked at night with a PSA popping out when the NGR's arrive. Having the driver do this is not possible due to the ends of NGR's not meeting DAA requirements meaning every NGR has to go through a second round of DAA modifications to the cab ends. The same applies to DOO. As long as the NGRs do not have wheelchair access points at the cab ends  DOO will not be a factor and that's ignoring station problems and ETCS.

Drivers/guards are on a fixed roster. So you might 'save' on transit time but that doesn't take into account the dead time that crews are still being paid for. If you are boosting frequency the same applies as you have increased the amount of onboard crew required and the PSA crew levels aswell. This is where rosters/control make cost savings by having psa clock off and rely on the fat to make up delays or merging the subs and mains on the ncl/city. Same with the amount of crew OT being done. It's a complex issue. As I have said it's difficult to compare networks despite similarities. And claiming cost savings simply isn't true.

Now. Patronage. I could raise this but it's a similar issue. It's not a simple claim. You need a supporting network. You like to mention it to Perth but it's not Perth. Perth still has a lot of city travel. Gold Coast has short haul and long haul in the one corridor.

That's great HTG, I cannot assist you further and I hope that you find the answers that you are looking for. Respectfully, I want to focus my time on things that are going to be positive, constructive, and move the dial with patronage, speed and frequency on this network. The time gap between what motorists can do vs what PT users can do on current PT is a key reason why ~ 80% of trips are being taken in cars.

Challenging the current thinking in SEQ is needed because after seeing and using the Perth system myself - and seeing the very positive numbers/stats- I would want to see improvements like that here.

[HappyTrainGuy]

That's fine but be realistic and when people point out problems or question points don't go into defence mode pushing out more jargon trying to double down on your point and calling people negative because they don't share your same view point or in my instance questioning some of your points.

Just look how difficult and dragged out it was for you to reply to the claim of cheaper labour costs and even then it was a general quote.

I was looking for a sentence or a couple points. Nothing too difficult. Just a simple response. Even after multiple times I specifically said I don't care about what happens elsewhere in Perth and I wanted to know how this on the QR network would result in cheaper labour costs. Yet the response was a story about buses in Perth, a train trip on an highway and a link to a website with a very vague quote. Nothing at all about our network and why labour costs would be lower.

Simple answers. It should not be that difficult. Not in depth stories with links to multiple pdf files. Simple answers.

Out of everything you've posted you still don't mention if it feeds into crr or via south brisbane other than a tunnel near Dutton Park.

And costs. Wasn't that a struggle. You try to attack me over the current alignment speed side stepping my question yet make grand claims of 160kph running times.

If you are trying to change peoples mind using the your wrong I'm right look at all these in depth random .pdf files attitude won't get you far.

[#Metro]

Transferred from the Transport Research Thread
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=278687

Did they do an options analysis considering this M1 corridor option and rejecting it based on an analysis of that, or was it rejected on "the vibe", or a ministerial decision?

Not likely. A back up of the napkin study would give the result "prohibitively expensive". Especially considering you'd need to tunnel from about garden city to CRR. While plenty of widening has been done south of there, there's not much chance they'll resume properties along the M3 corridor. Much higher land values, higher density land usages, etc.

Its also Likely they're aware of the HSR corridor from the 2013 study, and the fact that that corridor could be used for a faster alignment to the GC means why would you go and spend millions on researching ANOTHER rail corridor. Funnily enough if you read IA's website this is a corridor that, while not fully gazetted, is at least something IA is trying to preserve.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/map/corridor-preservation-east-coast-high-speed-rail

An R1 tunnel only needs to be about ~ 2.6 km from between Fairfield and Dutton Park to get the R1 Gold Coast trains into the M1 corridor. That's much less distance than the 10 km to Garden City. It's a shorter length than the CRR tunnels which are ~ 5.9 km and go under the Brisbane river.

If the R1 design places stations off the M1 corridor, there will need to be short tunnel sections but there are only 3 new stations in between Beenleigh and Dutton Park. And its not like the SE busway does not have short tunnelled sections either - it's got tunnels next to the Brisbane Convention Centre, South Bank, at Buranda, and at Garden City.

Interestingly enough, a group opposed to placing Perth's Mandurah line into the Kwinana Freeway suggested that the rail line be tunnelled, so as to bump up the cost of the project from $1 billion to $10 billion and knock out the rail option in favour of a busway.

For the Perth Joondalup line construction, a 5 km section of the Mitchell Freeway had no median for the train, so the freeway had to be moved either side by WA Main Roads to make one.

[timh]

Transferred from the Transport Research Thread
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=278687

Did they do an options analysis considering this M1 corridor option and rejecting it based on an analysis of that, or was it rejected on "the vibe", or a ministerial decision?

Not likely. A back up of the napkin study would give the result "prohibitively expensive". Especially considering you'd need to tunnel from about garden city to CRR. While plenty of widening has been done south of there, there's not much chance they'll resume properties along the M3 corridor. Much higher land values, higher density land usages, etc.

Its also Likely they're aware of the HSR corridor from the 2013 study, and the fact that that corridor could be used for a faster alignment to the GC means why would you go and spend millions on researching ANOTHER rail corridor. Funnily enough if you read IA's website this is a corridor that, while not fully gazetted, is at least something IA is trying to preserve.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/map/corridor-preservation-east-coast-high-speed-rail

An R1 tunnel only needs to be about ~ 2.6 km from between Fairfield and Dutton Park to get the R1 Gold Coast trains into the M1 corridor.

If the R1 design stations off the M1 corridor, there will need to be short tunnel sections but there are only 3 new stations in between Beenleigh and Dutton Park. And its not like the SE busway does not have short tunnelled sections either - it's got tunnels next to the Brisbane Convention Centre, South Bank, at Buranda, and at Garden City.

"THE" R1 design. You mean a line you drew on Google maps?

The same one that you reckoned could median run in the existing M3 alignment for the majority of the way?

[verbatim9]

They aren't going to realign North of Sunnybank/Coopers Pains anytime soon. I would like that curve taken out between Banoon and Altandi with Sunnybank Station and Altandi Station consolidated though.

[#Metro]

Three tracks between Dutton Park and Kuraby will remain after LGCFR. This suggests running 15 min in both directions all day for GC and BL lines will still be a challenge.

Suggests a further ~ $6b project is required to do the Dutton Pk to Kuraby section. Corridor is constrained so resumptions likely, as it is with the current LGCFR project.

What would the average speed be and additional time saved in minutes be if quad track were done Dutton Park to Kuraby?

Seems like two essential pieces of information we need before considering upgrade of the current corridor vs a new one.

If you're spending $5-6 billion, on an existing corridor, it should be possible to describe the alternatives analysis.

Could GC trains maintain an average speed of 120 km/hr on an upgraded Beenleigh line alignment between Dutton Park and Beenleigh?

---
Interview ABC Brisbane Radio Breakfast
Hosts Craig Zonca and Loretta Ryan with Robert Dow RBoT, 1st November 2019

Fast Rail to the Gold Coast - R1
Interview --> https://backontrack.org/docs/abcbris/abcbris_rd1nov19.mp3 MP3 12.2MB

(Group position was slightly different to the concept in this thread, main point of difference was elevated concept along the M3/A1 corridor).



^ Image made by another RBOT member. Facebook link https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/rail-back-on-track-calls-for-r1-fast-rail-between-the-northern-gold-coast-and-br/2959925507354950/

---

A Fast Rail vision for SEQ
15th November 2021
https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/photos/a.653209831359874/5094143180599828/?type=3

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers wants fast rail services running across SEQ by 2032.

...

- A fast corridor between Beenleigh and the City
Between Beenleigh and the CBD, "Express trains" from the Gold Coast must negotiate a snakelike route, taking 50 minutes to travel just 40km. The current Gold Coast and Logan Faster Rail project will straighten some of this out, but doesn't go far enough. A properly designed continuous fast route between Beenleigh and the CBD is the true solution to slash journey times.

[#Metro]

Some other published material.

Elevated fast rail along M1 has 'merit': transport minister
Tony Moore
October 31, 2019 — 9.47pm
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/elevated-fast-rail-along-m1-has-merit-transport-minister-20191029-p535hl.html

Rail Back on Track has put forward a futuristic idea to build a 160km/h elevated rail line along a section of the M1 between Beenleigh and the Cross River Rail at Dutton Park "to stimulate debate, not necessarily roads".

"Basically, our idea is an elevated rail – with limited tunnels – beside the M1, with stations at Mt Gravatt, Springwood and the Hyperdome, where it could connect with the bus network," Mr Dow said.

From this other article, there does appear to be a fast rail business case running around for the Gold Coast. Was supposed to be released at the end of 2022.

Ticket to ride at 160km/h as Queensland works on two Fast Rail cases

By Tony Moore
September 2, 2020 — 8.03pm

The Queensland government is working on two separate business cases for futuristic 160km/h Fast Rail links in the state's south-east.
...

The second $22 million business case examines a link between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

[Gazza]

As far as I know, QR/TMR have said that K2B Quadding is sufficient for 4tph on both stopping patterns.

I haven't really sat down to figure out to speculate how it might be done, though have some ideas

But in effect what the project means is that the "constrained" section is now in effect only from Dutton Park to Kuraby.

Remember, its a triple, so it can be used as an overtaking loop in either direction, and depending on where they install points you can manage the 3rd track to suit to service planned.

I am imagining something like this, where GC trains follow Beenleigh on the same tracks, and when the GC train is it about to catch up, it switches onto the middle track to pass.

And you can balance there inbound and outbound timetables such that the passing is occurring in different areas of the infrastructure.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Metro, you do know they are just rehashing old studies over and over. Remember Nambour 160kph quad alignment plans. Toowoomba had 160kph studies done back in the 90's and 2000's for tilttrain expansion but opted for a DMU layout instead. There were even studies to run ICE trains to Toowoomba but tunnel problems prevented electrification from happening out that way. The coal basin out that way had a study done on electrification and the end result was electrify the line to Gladstone rather than deal with Toowoomba-Ipswich.

Dutton Park to Kuraby is fine for overtaking as a triple. As Gazza mentioned providing there are crossovers installed in key spots. The only problem you have long term is Beaudesert but that's only going to happen with inland rail and we all know how well that's progressing.

[timh]

Reality is K2B is what we're getting for GC line for the medium term. Long term I really think if they're gonna go for a new corridor, they're gonna use the HSR approach to the city. Metro: since you like reading published papers you should research the approach corridor into Brisbane for HSR from the 2013 report. Its a very expensive option but the idea is that once build, you can use it to speed up regional services until eventually (ie 50-100 years later) HSR is built. Remember that railway infrastructure is generally has a 100+ year lifespan.

K2B is that far along, that it's pointless looking for your R1 proposal at this point. Try focus your attention on what can be done to improve the Dutton Park to Beenleigh section within the existing corridor / with minimal curve straightening. What options are there going forward to enable to the spur from Salisbury to Beaudesert, etc.

[#Metro]

Roads Appear to Get High Mode Share Due to Off Peak

It's worth reflecting on what the M3/M1 Pacific Motorway is doing.

Only a fraction of the entire day's traffic is moving during a 2-hour peak. This implies that a competing mode (rail) needs to be fast and frequent in the off-peak too.

The Pacific Motorway A1/M3 is a 3+3 road in parts, and 4+4 in other parts. Let's just run with 3+3 for now.

- We know a road lane can do about 1,800 vehicles per hour x 3 lanes inbound to Brisbane.
- That gives us 5,400 vehicles towards Brisbane in the morning 1-hour peak
- A two hour peak is just double this, so 10,800 vehicles towards Brisbane
- The people flux is then 1.2 persons x 10,800 vehicles = 12,960 in a 2-hour peak.

From public information we know also that the Pacific Motorway is moving somewhere between 100,000 to 150,000 vehicles per day. https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/map/m1-pacific-motorway-capacity-eight-mile-plains-tugun

The M1 Motorway is one of the busiest roads in Australia, carrying in excess of 150,000 vehicles per day, including over  12,000 heavy vehicles. The section of the motorway between Eight Mile Plains and Tugun cannot

- So that would put about 120,000 - 180,000 people moved by the motorway per day.
- The fraction moved in a 2-hour peak (one way) is thus between 7.2% to 10.8% of the total daily trips.

These figures are similar to what we know from the busways, the majority of trips are being taken outside of the peak.

Conclusion: Focusing on the train being as good or faster than the motorway during peak hours due to congestion on the motorway or roads is a bit misleading. Only about 20% of the daily trips are happening in peaks. The other 80% is happening during the off-peak.

If you want high patronage and mode share shift, the service needs to be competitive at all hours, not just in peak. Given that the motorway does 100 km/hr in the off-peak, and the train does half this at 55 km/hr* you can see how car will still be the dominant mode after LGCFR works are complete and probably not move the dial much with regard to mode share.



* GC express services on section between Park Road to Beenleigh

[JimmyP]

No sh%t. But guess what. The LGCFR is happening, whether we like it or not. The Gov are NOT going to spend all that money on quad K2B, enabling GC trains to overtake B trains, to then turn around and spend another several billion $$ building a brand new line for the GC right away.
As much as we would all love a new, much faster and better aligbment to the Gold Coast, it just ain't gonna happen considering the LGCFR project. Done. Dusted. Finito. R1 chance = -100 (for the foreseeable future). No point constantly banging on about it.

[#Metro]

And just for the record, a comparison between Gold Coast fast rail and Gold Coast faster rail:

A big difference!

The Gov are NOT going to spend all that money on quad K2B, enabling GC trains to overtake B trains, to then turn around and spend another several billion $$ building a brand new line for the GC right away.

You're right. They are going to turn around and spend several billion on building a duplicate M1 from the GC through Logan instead.

Duration calculation:
Track distance / average speed (in km/hr) then x 60 min and rounded to the nearest minute.

[timh]

Hey Metro, I think it's worth reitering that the project should not have been called "Logan To Gold coast Faster Rail". This is not what it's been referred to internally. Its primarily a capacity project, not a speed project. We all know that it's not going to be faster. The "Faster Rail" label was all government spin.

[Gazza]

For what is worth I was the one that actually drew up the R1 maps and did the MR back in the day.

Likewise when K2B came about I put forward some ideas about how to steam iron the alignment and get something fairly equivalent to what R1 would have done.

So its preaching to the choir to say that a faster straighter alignment is better than a legacy one, and posting a spreadsheet every few days restating the same thing is also preaching to the choir.

Like we know there are better ways to do this, that's why I went to the effort of writing the proposal in the first place.

But the reality is, they are already in the process of property acquisitions for K2B, and similarly for the M1 busway extension to Hyperdome.

So what's the point in pretending both projects would be abandoned and planning back to square one?

[Jonno]

Hmmmm

https://x.com/north0fnorth/status/1759379964548255787?

[#Metro]

How does Perth handle it, Jonno?

Don't they just enclose the station?

[HappyTrainGuy]

Different road surface.

[SurfRail]

There's still plenty of road noise at any station on or near the Mitchell, Kwinana or Graham Farmer Freeways.  In the case of the latter 2 (Joondalup and Mandurah lines) the railway using that corridor is for the sake of expediency, not because it's the ideal result.

[Gazza]

^It's telling at Joondalup they pulled the line away from the median and ran it through the town center of Joondalup because it was a better urban planning outcome.

[SurfRail]

I'm not 100% sure where the freeway terminated when the line originally opened - when Clarkson opened I think it only ran as far as Burns Beach Road (ie around Currambine).

EDIT:  Appears the freeway only went as far as Ocean Reef Rd when the railway opened, but they still treated it seriously enough to put the railway in the guts of the town centre and not leave it on the fringe.  They also clearly weren't fazed by diverting the Mandurah line away from the freeway alignments and towards Rockingham south of Anketell.